CHAPTER I Journal of English Language Teaching http://ojs.ikipmataram.ac.id/index.php/joelt DOI:10.33394/jo-elt.v6i2.2362 Volume 6 Nomor 2, Desember 2019 online: 2548-5865, print: 2355-0309 pp.99-105 99 CONTEXTUAL TEACHING LEARNING (CTL) APPROACH IN SPEAKING MATERIALS FOR STUDENTS’ 21ST CENTURY SKILL: DOES IT HAVE ANY EFFECT? Dedi Sumarsono 1) , Muliani 2) FPBS, UNDIKMA MATARAM dedisumarsono@ikipmataram.ac.id 1) , muliani@ikipmataram.ac.id 2) Abstract In this era, having only speaking competence is not adequate for the students. They also need to possess some other skills like critical thinking which is also known as the 21st century skill. The 21st century learners must possess both self-direction and an ability to collaborate with individuals, groups, and machines. To support this, new speaking materials based on the context of the real world need to be used in teaching the students to ensure the EFL thinking critically is urgently needed. This paper is aimed at knowing the effect English speaking material which is based on contextual teaching learning towards EFL critical thinking in speaking. To achieve this purpose, the students were taught using speaking material which is based on contextual teaching-learning before the speaking test was taken at the end. To analyze the data t-test was applied. The data analysis showed that CTL had a significant effect on students’ critical thinking after being treated. Keywords: Critical Thinking Skills, Speaking Material, Contextual Teaching Learning INTRODUCTION Speaking is the language skills which is very important to be mastered by the students. Having well speaking ability, the students will be able to have an interaction with others. At SMAN 1 Kopang, Speaking skills is taught in English lessons with promising expectation. After taking the speaking subject, the students are able to communicate well in English. Besides, the students are also demanded to convey the utterance in English rather than in their native language; express their ideas without mixing the words or the sentence with their own native language for the word they don’t understand; pronounce the words correctly and it should not change the meaning of the word; use accurate grammar in composing the sentence. On the words, it is hoped that the students will possess a high level of speaking In this era, having only speaking competence is not adequate for the students. They also need to possess some skills like critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity skills which are known as 21 st century skills. McCoog (2008) as cited in Boholano (2017: 22) argues that 21st century learners must possess both self- direction and an ability to collaborate with individuals, groups, and machines. Furthermore, he states that to acquire 21st century skills, students must be encouraged to create new ideas, evaluate and analyze the material presented, and apply that knowledge to their previous academic experiences. The skill which plays an important role and needs to be possessed by the students is critical thinking ability. Cotrell (2005: 1) Critical thinking is a cognitive activity, associated with using the mind. Learning to think in critically analytical and evaluative ways mailto:dedisumarsono@ikipmataram.ac.id mailto:muliani@ikipmataram.ac.id 100 means using mental processes such as attention, categorization, selection, and judgment. Critical thinking is the intelligently self-controlled process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. It is based on universal intellectual values that excel subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness (Scriven & Richard, in Masduqi, 2011: 186). In the teaching and learning process, students will improve their critical thinking when teachers use appropriate instructional methods and curriculum materials (Gadzella & Masten, 1998; Halpern, 1993; McMillan in Von and Kaewurai, 2017: 89). This opinion was supported by the research conducted by Von and Kaewurai (2017: 89) that state critical thinking of trainee students could be improved when an appropriate instruction was used. Elder and Paul (2001) as cited in Djiwandono, (2013), explain some components of critical thinking skills, namely: (1) Interpretation: the ability to comprehend information; (2) Analysis: the ability to identify the main arguments presented; (3) Evaluation: The ability to judge whether this argument is credible and valid based on the logic and evidence given; (4) Inference: the ability to decide what to believe or do based on solid logic and to understand the consequences of this decision; (5) Explanation: The ability to communicate the process of reasoning to others; and (6) Self-Regulation: the ability to monitor one’s own thinking and correct flaws in logic. Instructional materials also play a crucial role in the teaching-learning process. Olayinka (2016: 32) asserted that instructional materials are essential and significant tools needed for teaching and learning of school subjects to promote teachers’efficiency and improve students’ performance. They make learning more interesting, practical, realistic and appealing. They also enable both the teachers and students to participate actively and effectively in lesson sessions. For this reason, in order to achieve intended characteristics, teaching materials should be well prepared, considering the context and the needs of the users. Harding (200) as cited in Sumarsono, Bagis, and Arraffi (2017: 67) suggested three recommendations to consider while coming up with a set of materials: 1. Use context, texts, and situations from the students’ subject area – Whether they are real or stimulated they will naturally involve the language the students need. 2. Exploit authentic materials that students use in their specialism or vocation – Do not be put off by the fact that it may not look like ‘normal English’. 3. Make the tasks authentic as well as the tasks – Get the students doing things with the materials that they actually need to do their work (Harding, 2007, p 10 -11). In the teaching and learning process, sometimes speaking materials used are not appropriate for the students and not based on the context. The material does not provide the students' chances to relate their idea with their daily life. In the context of English language teaching in higher education, these processes seem to be 101 neglected. The English materials used sometimes are also inauthentic and irrelevant both for the teaching-learning process and assessment of the students’ needs. Rukmini (2017: 265) argues that assessments of speaking should focus on student’s ability to interpret and convey meanings for authentic purposes in the interactive context. Teachers need to use assessment tasks that are as authentic as possible in a classroom setting. This means (1) using authentic language in speaking, (2) setting real world tasks, and (3) giving the students opportunities to use language in a situation based on everyday life. There are seven components of the CTL approach that can be used as the guidance for the teacher in the implementation of it in the classroom; they are constructivism, inquiry, questioning, learning community, modeling, reflection, and authentic assessment (Rusman, 2014; Supinah, 2012; Yulianti, Warsiti, & Chrysti, 2016; in Nydia: 2018). Through constructivism, inquiry, and asking questions activity, the students will find the information about the material and develop their awareness. In the learning community, they learn together in the group and share their knowledge and ideas. Contextual teaching and learning have been differently defined by many experts. Some experts define contextual teaching and learning as a concept that helps teachers and students relate the meaning and real world situations with the subject matter in the right way (Johnson, 2002; Sears, 2002). In line with the implementation of CTL or contextual approach (Satriani, et. al, 2012: 11) suggests some strategies that teachers use in the classroom as follows: 1. Relating is the most powerful element in a contextual teaching strategy. It also suggests that students’ learning in the context of one’s life experiences or preexisting knowledge (Crawford, 2001). 2. Experiencing; in a contextual approach, one strategy relates to another. Teachers are able to overcome this obstacle and help students construct new knowledge with hand-on experiences that occur inside the classroom. 3. Applying strategy can be defined as learning by putting the concepts to use. Teachers can also motivate a need for understanding the concepts by assigning realistic and relevant exercises. 4. Cooperating; teachers using student-led groups to complete exercises or hands- on activities are using the strategy of cooperating. This strategy refers to learning in the context of sharing, responding, and communicating with other learners 5. Transferring is a teaching strategy that we define as using knowledge in a new context or novel situation—one that has not been covered in class. Dealing with the explanation above, the teaching speaking material need to be well prepared to ensure that the students can learn based on the context or real world. According to Johnson and Sears (2002), as cited in Satriani, et. al (2012: 11) contextual teaching and learning is defined as a concept that helps teachers and students relate the meaning and real world situations with the subject matter in the right way. Materials which are based on the context can attract the students’ motivation and interest to study because it can help the students enrich their knowledge and improve critical thinking 102 in speaking. The contextual approach is a learning philosophy that emphasizes students’ interests and experiences (Satriani, et. al, 2012: 11). Therefore, this research is proposed to know the effect of contextual speaking material towards students’ 21st century skills (critical thinking). RESEARCH METHOD The research method used in this study was experimental research. The purpose of an experimental study is to investigate the correlation between cause and effect and how far its correlation is by giving certain treatment to experimental class and to control class as the comparison. This research was quasi experimental research because the random assignment was not used in determining or distributing samples into experiment class and control class. The population of the study was the students of SMAN 1 Kopang. The sample of the research was two classes of the second-grade students of SMAN 1 Kopang. The instrument used in collecting the data was the Speaking test. The test was used to know the students speaking skill, the students are given a speaking test in the form of an oral interview test. The students’ speaking test was arranged based on the indicators at the blueprint, formulated based on the construct. The techniques of analyzing data used for the research were descriptive analysis and inferential analysis. Descriptive analysis is used to know: Mean, Median, Mode, and Standard deviation of the speaking test. Meanwhile, to know its significance t-test is applied. FINDING AND DISCUSSION Research Finding The result of the study was then focused on the statistical analysis both descriptive and inferential. This analysis showed how to calculate the data before they are discussed and stated at the conclusion. The discussion was continued to the analysis and the interpretation of the investigation. To find out the result of the study, the researcher analyzed the data obtained from the students’ results. This study was aimed at finding out the research problem that is ―Does Contextual Teaching Learning (CTL) have a good effect towards students’ 21st Century Skill? Table 1 The descriptive statistics of the students’ critical thinking Group Statistics group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean score 1,00 26 54,1827 3,83963 ,75301 2,00 26 64,9038 3,60422 ,70685 The data description of the students’ critical thinking for the pre-test showed that the mean score was 54.18, the standard deviation was 3.84, and the standard Error mean was 0.75 and N=26. Meanwhile, the data description of the students’ critical thinking for the post-test showed that the mean score was 64.90, the standard deviation was 3.6, and the standard Error mean was 0.70 and N=26. 103 Table 2 The t-test of the students’ critical thinking Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means F Sig. T df Sig. (2- tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Score Equal variances assumed .144 .706 -10.381 50 .000 -0.7211 1.03279 -2,7955 -8.64673 Equal variances not assumed -10.381 49.80 .000 -0.7211 1.03279 -2.7957 -8.64652 As the table above shows that the mean score of a posttest (64.90) is higher than that at the pretest (54.18), it could be concluded that the students’ critical thinking was improved after the treatment was given. However, as the sig. 2-tailed is (0.000) is higher than the significance level (0.05), it could be concluded that there is a significant difference between the two means of the group. Discussion Based on the data finding from the test, it shows that CTL gives a positive effect towards students critical thinking in speaking. There are some reasons that lead students' self-confidence improved when they were taught through CTL Approach as follows; CTL leads the students to relate the topic of discussing with their real world. It is in line with Dewey in Nydia (2018) who informed that The students learn to connect the material being discuss with their knowledge and environment, they will learn better. By applying CTL students also have opportunity to force their brain to deliver some questions towards the problem they have because through questioning activity, the students find the information about the material and develop their awareness (Nyndia: 2018). Besides, in CTL the students are trained to work in a group for sharing their ideas with their friends without feeling afraid and worried. Johnson and Johnson and Olsen and Kagan in Astuti and Lammers (2017) state Cooperative learning as a group learning activity in which individual students’ contribution to the learning is realized through their performance or presentation, which is beneficial not only for their own learning but also for their peers’ learning and the group’s goals. Johnson et al as cited in Muliani, et al (2016) also added that in cooperative groups, students can engage in discussions in which they construct and extend conceptual understanding of what is being learned. Eventually, it is found that giving teaching material based on students learning a habit, managing the time effectively, and collaboratively paying attention to all students when working could encourage the students to be active, to interact with others and have a motivation in learning. 104 CONCLUSION Students are expected to have critical thinking skill in this era. For that reason, teachers should have a way out to assist them to achieve good critical thinking skill. One of the ways, as it is found in this research, is that through the application of Contextual Teaching and Learning (CTL) in which it is proved that it has a significant effect for students’ critical thinking in Speaking. Next to that, it is expected that further researcher will take another skill into consideration to be researched that it is hoped that more benefit can be contributed to the students’ critical thinking skill regarding another skill. REFERENCES Astuti, P., & Lammers, J. (2017). Individual Accountability in Cooperative Learning: More Opportunities to Produce Spoken English. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), pp. 215- 228. Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practice. New York: Pearson Education, Inc. Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical Thinking Skills Developing Effective Analysis and Argument. New York: Palcrave Macmillan. Djiwandono, P. I. (2013). Critical Thinking Skills For Language Students. TEFLIN Journal, 24(1), 32–47. Indrilla, N. (2018). The Effectiveness of Scientific Approach and Contextual Teaching and Learning Approach in Teaching Writing. Lingua Cultura, 12(4), 405-41. Marczyk, G, DeMatteo, D., & Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of Research Design and Methodology. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. Inc. Masduqi, H. (2011). Critical Thinking Skills and Meaning in English Language Teaching. TEFLIN Journal, 22, 185–200. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal .v22i2/185-200. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. a. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Evaluation and Program Planning. https://doi.org/10.1016/01497189(9) 88232-2. Muliani., Maurisa, Sofia., & Nurusshobah. (2016). InTASC Standard Cores: Raising Students’ English Modality Competence. Lingua Cultura, 10(2), 111-115. Olayinka. (2016). Effects of Instructional Materials on Secondary Schools Students’ Academic Achievement in Social Studies in Ekiti State, Nigeria. World Journal of Education, 6(1), 32. Richards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rukmini, Saputri. (2017). The Authentic Assessment to Measure Students’ English Productive Skills Based on 2013 Curriculum. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics,7(2), pp. 263-273. Satriani, Emilia ,Gunawan. (2012). Contextual Teaching And Learning Approach to Teaching Writing. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), pp. 10-22. Silalahi, R. M. (2017). Assessing University Students’ Critical https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v22i2/185-200 https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v22i2/185-200 https://doi.org/10.1016/01497189(9)88232-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/01497189(9)88232-2 105 Thinking Skill by Using the TOEFL ITP Reading Test. Lingua Cultura, 11(2), 79. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v11i2.15 18. Sumarsono., Bagis., & Arraffi. (2017). Students’ Need to develop English Writing Material. Lingua Cultura, 11(2). Trilling, B., Fadel, C., & Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). 21St Century Skills : Learning for Life in Our Times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl= en&lr=&id=VUrAvc8OB1YC&oi=f nd&pg=PR7&dq=crosscultural+in+2 1st+century&ots=DvdMUzaxgR&si g=4UpGq0MuBdBTB417jiuRmkrW 3R. Turk, C. (2003). Effective Speaking: Communicating in Speech. England: Taylor and Francis e-Library. Vanicheva, T., Kah, M., & Ponidelko, L. (2015). Critical Thinking within the Current Framework of ESP Curriculum in Technical Universities of Russia. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 657–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015 .07.595. Vong, S. A., & Kaewurai, W. (2017). Instructional model development to enhance critical thinking and critical thinking teaching ability of trainee students at regional teaching training center in Takeo province, Cambodia. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 38(1), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2016.0 5.002. ŽivkoviĿ, S. (2016). A Model of Critical Thinking as an Important Attribute for Success in the 21st Century. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 232, 102–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016 .10.034. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v11i2.1518 https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v11i2.1518 https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VUrAvc8OB1YC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=crosscultural+in+21st+century&ots=DvdMUzaxgR&sig=4UpGq0MuBdBTB417jiuRmkrW3R https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VUrAvc8OB1YC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=crosscultural+in+21st+century&ots=DvdMUzaxgR&sig=4UpGq0MuBdBTB417jiuRmkrW3R https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VUrAvc8OB1YC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=crosscultural+in+21st+century&ots=DvdMUzaxgR&sig=4UpGq0MuBdBTB417jiuRmkrW3R https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VUrAvc8OB1YC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=crosscultural+in+21st+century&ots=DvdMUzaxgR&sig=4UpGq0MuBdBTB417jiuRmkrW3R https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VUrAvc8OB1YC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=crosscultural+in+21st+century&ots=DvdMUzaxgR&sig=4UpGq0MuBdBTB417jiuRmkrW3R https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=VUrAvc8OB1YC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=crosscultural+in+21st+century&ots=DvdMUzaxgR&sig=4UpGq0MuBdBTB417jiuRmkrW3R https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.595 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.595 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2016.05.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2016.05.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.034 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.034